Sievers Sidebar #3

[MsJosie]

A thought of mine!

Could CWW's wedding have been to cover up for any money he received from MS or was this planned long before?
And If money was given to CWW as a wedding present how can they then prove it was a pay off to murder Teresa.
Can they just take CWW's word for it or do they need some other evidence?

Good thinking, and it is not 'far out there' either. I don't know the answers to your questions, but the wedding could have been a cover up. MS thinks he is smart and sneaky....I wouldn't put it past him. It will be real interesting when our questions are finally answered by release of docs and the trial.

I read recently that MS wrote and gave CWW a check out of 'another account' to pay for the murder of TS...does anyone remember if this was in the testimony just given in the bond hearing? CWW may have received
more then one payment...before and after.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Good thinking, and it is not 'far out there' either. I don't know the answers to your questions, but the wedding could have been a cover up. MS thinks he is smart and sneaky....I wouldn't put it past him. It will be real interesting when our questions are finally answered by release of docs and the trial.

I read recently that MS wrote and gave CWW a check out of 'another account' to pay for the murder of TS...does anyone remember if this was in the testimony just given in the bond hearing? CWW may have received
more then one payment...before and after.

I believe it was discussed during the reduced bond hearing held this week. I believe the check was to cover travel expenses to come to Florida to commit the murder and payment for the murder itself was to come from the life insurance policy(s)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[human]

HUMAN I used to volunteer at a school and specialized in helping 12 years (ie 8th graders) pass the "Constitution Test"... I would use a series of Key Words to correlate to each amendment.
So here is one of them. SIXTH Amendment: six sounds like sixty, SIXTY DAYS !! Every person has the right to an attorney and a SPEEDY TRIAL (60 DAYS) by an impartial jury.
Innocent people accused of crimes don't have to sit in jail awaiting a trial. Our forefathers didn't want that to happen either, and I would be guilty of a great disservice to our Constitution (BTW, the 2nd greatest document ever written......the 3rd, according to my hubby, is my prenup:blushing if I didn't respond to the "fostering of misinformation" in this great country bounded by laws.

One is fun....talking to your pals: (but not in class!) The FIRST AMENDMENT...the right to free speech. . Two is double....double barrel shot gun...The SECOND AMENDMENT....the right to bear arms. Three...three's a crowd...The THIRD AMENDMENT ..."quartering soldiers in private homes without consent..." etc.... All of the students passed the test!

I am harping on this because there are going to be challenges to the idea of keeping people in jail if they cannot afford a bond. I have several people who are in different groups that are preparing to challenge this. I mean with big time lawsuits.

It is of great concern to me. How is it all going to shake down?

 

[Jen Darme]

I do not think you get my point. I am not for him or anyone being out on bail, but one is not convicted until a trial. And we know people get put in jail awaiting trial while innocent.

So let us say you are innocent and cannot pay the bond. You sit in jail maybe for a year, innocent,

People are questioning this, I see it as a huge problem, but then again, I do not want people like MS out.

There will be lawsuits about this whole problem. Groups are gearing up for it

I agree that excessive bail is a valid issue, particularly for members of marginalized groups, but MS's situation is not an example of that.

From the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights (Article 1, Section 14):

Pretrial release and detention.—Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.​

Nothing is out of whack in MS's case.

 

[human]

I agree that excessive bail is a valid issue, particularly for members of marginalized groups, but MS's situation is not an example of that.

From the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights (Article 1, Section 14):

Pretrial release and detention.—Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.​

Nothing is out of whack in MS's case.

Oh, I agree, but the idea of bail is going to be challenged. Only those who can afford can get out? Everyone else stays in.

I am bringing this up because this idea is real and will be coming up.

I would have never believed such a possibility, but in the State of Minnesota which has civil commitment for the most horrifying of sex offenders, the offenders found some lawyers who took the case and challenged civil commitment. The taxpers paid for the attorneys as well as the State attorneys who fought the challenge.

The nightmare offenders WON! They have done the most heinous of crimes. Nothing surprises me anymore. I guess. But almost everyday there seems to be another crazy thing out forwars

 

[irishchook]

I agree that excessive bail is a valid issue, particularly for members of marginalized groups, but MS's situation is not an example of that.

From the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights (Article 1, Section 14):

Pretrial release and detention.—Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.​

Nothing is out of whack in MS's case.

Agree. He is NOT marginalized.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cricket99]

Joining discussion - Hi Everyone!!

 

[AZlawyer]

I agree. People are generally given high (unaffordable) bonds for 2 reasons: (1) they are a flight risk, (2) they are a potential danger to the community/witnesses.

If they are really a danger, no bond should be offered. Rich dangerous people should not be enabled to wander free any more than poor dangerous people should.

If they are not a danger but are a flight risk, the bond should be affordable but enough under the circumstances to ensure that the person will return for trial rather than give up the bond money. This is where the person's assets can be taken into account. If lots of defendants basically can't afford anything at all (which unfortunately is the case), we ought to be relying on electronic monitoring rather than money bonds to avoid jailing people for being poor.

 

[Jessicades]

I agree. People are generally given high (unaffordable) bonds for 2 reasons: (1) they are a flight risk, (2) they are a potential danger to the community/witnesses.

If they are really a danger, no bond should be offered. Rich dangerous people should not be enabled to wander free any more than poor dangerous people should.

If they are not a danger but are a flight risk, the bond should be affordable but enough under the circumstances to ensure that the person will return for trial rather than give up the bond money. This is where the person's assets can be taken into account. If lots of defendants basically can't afford anything at all (which unfortunately is the case), we ought to be relying on electronic monitoring rather than money bonds to avoid jailing people for being poor.

HI AZ,
Question for you. When MS had one of his first court appearances, it was mentioned by his original attorney that one of his daughters had health issues. Is it common that judges will grant a lower bail when there is a child at home with health concerns or does that not play into the decision making of the courts?

 

[irishchook]

I agree. People are generally given high (unaffordable) bonds for 2 reasons: (1) they are a flight risk, (2) they are a potential danger to the community/witnesses.

If they are really a danger, no bond should be offered. Rich dangerous people should not be enabled to wander free any more than poor dangerous people should.

If they are not a danger but are a flight risk, the bond should be affordable but enough under the circumstances to ensure that the person will return for trial rather than give up the bond money. This is where the person's assets can be taken into account. If lots of defendants basically can't afford anything at all (which unfortunately is the case), we ought to be relying on electronic monitoring rather than money bonds to avoid jailing people for being poor.

AZL, I was always under the impression the judge gave him the exact bond amount to reflect the total life insurance policies MS had on TS, in order to send a message. Did I think it may be a bit unprofessional...of course, however, I was pleased.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[irishchook]

I am harping on this because there are going to be challenges to the idea of keeping people in jail if they cannot afford a bond. I have several people who are in different groups that are preparing to challenge this. I mean with big time lawsuits.

It is of great concern to me. How is it all going to shake down?

My spin..."Can't afford the time. Don't do the crime!"

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[AZlawyer]

HI AZ,
Question for you. When MS had one of his first court appearances, it was mentioned by his original attorney that oneIt of his daughters had health issues. Is it common that judges will grant a lower bail when there is a child at home with health concerns or does that not play into the decision making of the courts?

That issue would be considered relevant to whether a parent is more likely to stick around instead of fleeing. A concerned parent is unlikely to flee to Mexico while his child needs him at home.

 

[Oregonmama]

document dump soon?

 

[Frigga]

Please- God... Yes!

 

[Jessicades]

That issue would be considered relevant to whether a parent is more likely to stick around instead of fleeing. A concerned parent is unlikely to flee to Mexico while his child needs him at home.

I didn't think of the flight risk. I thought that it had more to do with sympathy to lower bail. Thanks for responding!

 

[mariahc]

Could someone fill me in on the latest on MS attorney? Last I understood he was assigned public defender (regional office) since JRR had the local public defender. Has he come up with funds to hire his own representation and what is known about that? I missed all this somewhere along the line. Thank you, I'll be most appreciative.

 

[beach]

Could someone fill me in on the latest on MS attorney? Last I understood he was assigned public defender (regional office) since JRR had the local public defender. Has he come up with funds to hire his own representation and what is known about that? I missed all this somewhere along the line. Thank you, I'll be most appreciative.

I'm going to try to find time to start a thread on him tomorrow. His name is Michael Mummert. His firm is new to the Naples/Lee County area, though he has practiced in other FL counties. He is not a public defender. He was hired with private funds. I am pretty sure his family (mom and probably brother) pooled their funds for the retainer.

 

[mariahc]

I'm going to try to find time to start a thread on him tomorrow. His name is Michael Mummert. His firm is new to the Naples/Lee County area, though he has practiced in other FL counties. He is not a public defender. He was hired with private funds. I am pretty sure his family (mom and probably brother) pooled their funds for the retainer.

Thank you Beach. Mummert is with the Faga Law Group? Was I just asleep at the switch or was not much fanfare made about this hiring?

 

[beach]

Thank you Beach. Mummert is with the Faga Law Group? Was I just asleep at the switch or was not much fanfare made about this hiring?

Yes, that the the same firm. Hollander was either dismissed or withdrew (his choice) shortly after Mark was arrested. A short time later, Mummert & Faga filed their appearance. But, you're correct, there wasn't a lot of fanfare. Or if there was, we all missed it because we were sleuthing docs and not paying close attention.

My take post bond reduction hearing - Mummert has a LOT of catching up to do regarding the facts of this case. In his defense, there are at least 27,000 pages of discovery for him to read. If he were wise, he would just read here for a quick brush-up primer. lol

 

[Greater Than]

I'm going to try to find time to start a thread on him tomorrow. His name is Michael Mummert. His firm is new to the Naples/Lee County area, though he has practiced in other FL counties. He is not a public defender. He was hired with private funds. I am pretty sure his family (mom and probably brother) pooled their funds for the retainer.

Are we sure he's not court appointed? I know a regional counsel attorney filed MS's written plea of not guilty, and then four days later at his arraignment this new duo was representing him instead. But if there was a conflict of interest with regional council, a private attorney from the circuit registry would be assigned. Mummert is listed in the circuit registry of attorneys for court appointments. He's on the last page:
http://www.ca.cjis20.org/isc/pdf/AttyAppointmentRegistry.pdf

Faga, however, is not. And I don't know if MS would be entitled to court appointed co-counsel for a non-capital case anyway. On the other hand, he does have two cases currently pending. And indigent parents involved in dependency cases are represented by regional counsel, with the same circuit registry of attorneys available for appointment if there is a conflict.

But according to MS's case file, after the order allowing the PD to withdraw due to conflict of interest and the appointment of regional counsel was filed, there has been no other motion to withdraw and no other appointment filed, so I guess it does appear that they hired with private funds like you said.